Suspect Unlawfully Arrested Inside Motel Room When Coercive Police Tactics Forced Him to Answer Door
US v. Reeves, 2008 WL 1961246 (10th Cir. 5/7/08):
Tenth Circuit REVERSES the district court's denial of the felon-in-possession defendant's suppression motion, holding that the defendant was unlawfully arrested under Payton v. New York. The defendant was arrested without a warrant when he answered his motel room door at 3:30 a.m., after officers made phone calls to his room, knocked on his door and window with their flashlights, and loudly identified themselves as police officers for at least 20 minutes. The officers went to Reeves' room (where he had been living for awhile) because he was a suspect in an aggravated assault. After they beat on his door and forced him out, they saw he had a holster. A subsequent search disclosed guns and ammunition, which were the basis for the federal gun charges.
The Court found that the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress. The circumstances showed that Reeves did not open the door voluntarily but in response to coercive conduct, and therefore was unlawfully seized in the room.
The Court rejected the district court's conclusion that exigent circumstances and probable cause justified the seizure. The district court had found that the officers had to act because they knew Reeves was a felon and he was about to leave for California; problem with that conclusion was that the testimony was that the officers did not learn of the possible departure from the motel manager until after Reeves had been cuffed. The fact that the officers saw the holster when Reeves came to the door also couldn't support exigency because Reeves had been seized before ever opening the door. The court notes in a footnote that the government referred to victim and public safety in its brief, but failed to make any argument and the record is "devoid of any mention of a victim or member of the public whose safety may have been at risk during this encounter." Finally, the government forgot to argue that the unlawful arrest did not taint the subsequent search and forgot to ask for a remend for further finding, so "this court cannot say the causal connection between the illegality and the consent was broken."
Judge Tymkovich concurred, but objected to the majority's "unnecessarily broad language explaining the 'constructive entry' doctrine." In his view, the majority "implies that even limited, non-consensual knock-and=talk encounters are arrests if the suspect indicates any reluctance to open the door."
Tenth Circuit REVERSES the district court's denial of the felon-in-possession defendant's suppression motion, holding that the defendant was unlawfully arrested under Payton v. New York. The defendant was arrested without a warrant when he answered his motel room door at 3:30 a.m., after officers made phone calls to his room, knocked on his door and window with their flashlights, and loudly identified themselves as police officers for at least 20 minutes. The officers went to Reeves' room (where he had been living for awhile) because he was a suspect in an aggravated assault. After they beat on his door and forced him out, they saw he had a holster. A subsequent search disclosed guns and ammunition, which were the basis for the federal gun charges.
The Court found that the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress. The circumstances showed that Reeves did not open the door voluntarily but in response to coercive conduct, and therefore was unlawfully seized in the room.
The Court rejected the district court's conclusion that exigent circumstances and probable cause justified the seizure. The district court had found that the officers had to act because they knew Reeves was a felon and he was about to leave for California; problem with that conclusion was that the testimony was that the officers did not learn of the possible departure from the motel manager until after Reeves had been cuffed. The fact that the officers saw the holster when Reeves came to the door also couldn't support exigency because Reeves had been seized before ever opening the door. The court notes in a footnote that the government referred to victim and public safety in its brief, but failed to make any argument and the record is "devoid of any mention of a victim or member of the public whose safety may have been at risk during this encounter." Finally, the government forgot to argue that the unlawful arrest did not taint the subsequent search and forgot to ask for a remend for further finding, so "this court cannot say the causal connection between the illegality and the consent was broken."
Judge Tymkovich concurred, but objected to the majority's "unnecessarily broad language explaining the 'constructive entry' doctrine." In his view, the majority "implies that even limited, non-consensual knock-and=talk encounters are arrests if the suspect indicates any reluctance to open the door."
posted by Anonymous at 9:04 AM
<< Home